Rain seeks US trust bank charter days after OCC sued over crypto charters

Rain has submitted an application to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to charter Rain National Trust Bank in New York, signaling continued interest from crypto and payments firms in federal trust charters. The company said the proposed bank would provide fiduciary custody services for institutional clients, manage reserves for authorized stablecoin issuers, and issue and redeem dollar-backed stablecoins consistent with the GENIUS Act. Brandon Soto, formerly chief financial officer at Square Financial Services, is listed as the proposed president and CEO, pending OCC approval. Rain’s leadership framed the charter request as a response to client demand for assets to be held by a federally supervised fiduciary. The application coincides with other charter moves in the sector: payments infrastructure firm Modern Treasury also announced it had applied to offer digital-asset custody and related fiat services through a national trust charter. Industry observers have noted a broader trend over the past year of crypto companies seeking trust bank status to expand custody and payments capabilities. That trend is drawing legal pushback from community banks. The Independent Community Bankers of America sued the OCC and Comptroller Jonathan Gould in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the OCC exceeded its authority by allowing non-depository trust banks to engage in extensive non-fiduciary activities. The ICBA asked the court to vacate the OCC’s March 2026 national bank chartering rule and a 2021 interpretive letter (No. 1176), and to bar further charter approvals that rely on them. The complaint states the OCC has approved or conditionally approved at least 21 trust banks, at least 13 of which are crypto firms. Responses to the lawsuit have been divided: the ICBA argues the framework gives crypto trust banks a competitive edge and risks consumer confusion over federal insurance, while the Crypto Council for Innovation described the legal challenge as an attempt to stifle innovation. The outcome of the case could affect whether additional crypto-related trust charters are approved going forward.